Quote: @Jor-El said:
If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team.
IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad.
If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.
You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%
The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
Quote: @Carl Knowles said:
@ Jor-El said:
If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team.
IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad.
If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.
You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%
The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
What does your QB quiz look like when comparing players of the same era? The game has evolved greatly from the time your HOF players were in college vs your failures time. The more open offenses leads to more targets and more predictable and easier throws.
Completion percentage is such a difficult thing to evaluate without context. Nate had pretty poor receiver talent at Iowa, especially earlier in his career. Lots of drops, poor routes that impacted timing, and so forth. He isn’t the type to shift blame and would never do so in the open. He did have a tendency to sail passes on deep throws, which he admits was due to mechanical issues that he has tried to address through private coaching this offseason, and he would sometimes put a little extra on short throws that required more finesse.
I’ll say this. The kid is really smart. He’s a really hard worker. He is receptive to coaching. The arm and intangibles are there. I’ll enjoy following his career. I doubt he ever becomes an above average NFL starter, but I’m rooting for the kid.
Quote: @claykenny said:
Completion percentage is such a difficult thing to evaluate without context. Nate had pretty poor receiver talent at Iowa, especially earlier in his career. Lots of drops, poor routes that impacted timing, and so forth. He isn’t the type to shift blame and would never do so in the open. He did have a tendency to sail passes on deep throws, which he admits was due to mechanical issues that he has tried to address through private coaching this offseason, and he would sometimes put a little extra on short throws that required more finesse.
I’ll say this. The kid is really smart. He’s a really hard worker. He is receptive to coaching. The arm and intangibles are there. I’ll enjoy following his career. I doubt he ever becomes an above average NFL starter, but I’m rooting for the kid.
Question: why does Stanley get this rep as being this lumbering dump truck in the pocket? I'm not saying he's Lamar Jackson, but he's certainly more mobile than Kirk Cousins. He also ran a 4.7 forty at the Combine. Yes, he is a pocket passer for sure, but its not like he can't move around a little.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ claykenny said:
Completion percentage is such a difficult thing to evaluate without context. Nate had pretty poor receiver talent at Iowa, especially earlier in his career. Lots of drops, poor routes that impacted timing, and so forth. He isn’t the type to shift blame and would never do so in the open. He did have a tendency to sail passes on deep throws, which he admits was due to mechanical issues that he has tried to address through private coaching this offseason, and he would sometimes put a little extra on short throws that required more finesse.
I’ll say this. The kid is really smart. He’s a really hard worker. He is receptive to coaching. The arm and intangibles are there. I’ll enjoy following his career. I doubt he ever becomes an above average NFL starter, but I’m rooting for the kid.
Question: why does Stanley get this rep as being this lumbering dump truck in the pocket? I'm not saying he's Lamar Jackson, but he's certainly more mobile than Kirk Cousins. He also ran a 4.7 forty at the Combine. Yes, he is a pocket passer for sure, but its not like he can't move around a little.
To answer your question, we couldnt figure that out the last 3 years. I think his pocket awareness and willingness to be more mobile just wasnt there. When he did scramble he was quite good at it so it made no sense to me that he was a statute in the pocket. Even on roll-outs he would choose to wait for a guy to get open instead of running 6 yards. I dont know if Brian Ferentz told him to be that way?
Nate had a good receiving corps last year so the drop in statistics was inexcusable to me. All of us Hawk fans kept waiting for him to make that jump and some times he showed it, but it consistently never happened. Not saying that can't happen with the Vikes, but I wouldnt hold my breath.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Carl Knowles said:
@ Jor-El said:
If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team.
IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad.
If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.
You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%
The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
What does your QB quiz look like when comparing players of the same era? The game has evolved greatly from the time your HOF players were in college vs your failures time. The more open offenses leads to more targets and more predictable and easier throws.
How about the same draft class as a comparison? Here it is JimmyinSD.
Warren Moon 3277 - 48% vs Doug Williams 3286 - 51.4% (1st Rd)
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Jack Thompson 7818 - 55.3% (1st Rd)
Dan Marino 8597 - 57% vs Tony Eason 6608 - 61.4% (1st rd)
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs Chad Pennington 11,446 - 63.6% (1st Rd)
Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4% vs Mike Glennon 7411 - 60.4%
Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1% vs Kirk Cousins 9131 - 64.1%
Brandon Weeden 9260 - 69.5% vs Brock Osweiler 5082 - 60.6%
David Fales 8382 - 68% vs Tom Savage 5690 - 56.8%
Accuracy or completion percentage in college doesn't always translate as a sure fire indicator of whom will become the more successful NFL quarterback.
Stanley’s biggest problem was always locking on to receivers. He knew who he was throwing to before the play started 95% of the time and followed through with it. When they were covered tightly, he would get happy feet and ultimately good things would not happen. He’s got the arm, and his accuracy is not stellar, but better than people give him credit for. His “process time” is an issue in getting through progressions. He’d force the ball to his first option, while his third option would be open by 10-15 yards. I watched him VERY closely for the last three years. He’s an interesting prospect, but if the process time issues persist, he won’t be able to be more than a back-up at this level.
Quote: @Waterboy said:
Stanley’s biggest problem was always locking on to receivers. He knew who he was throwing to before the play started 95% of the time and followed through with it. When they were covered tightly, he would get happy feet and ultimately good things would not happen. He’s got the arm, and his accuracy is not stellar, but better than people give him credit for. His “process time” is an issue in getting through progressions. He’d force the ball to his first option, while his third option would be open by 10-15 yards. I watched him VERY closely for the last three years. He’s an interesting prospect, but if the process time issues persist, he won’t be able to be more than a back-up at this level.
Fair assessment. Yeah, any guy selected in the 7th round is going to be a work in progress. Odds are against him for sure.
Quote: @Carl Knowles said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Carl Knowles said:
@ Jor-El said:
If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team.
IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad.
If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.
You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%
The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
What does your QB quiz look like when comparing players of the same era? The game has evolved greatly from the time your HOF players were in college vs your failures time. The more open offenses leads to more targets and more predictable and easier throws.
How about the same draft class as a comparison? Here it is JimmyinSD.
Warren Moon 3277 - 48% vs Doug Williams 3286 - 51.4% (1st Rd)
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Jack Thompson 7818 - 55.3% (1st Rd)
Dan Marino 8597 - 57% vs Tony Eason 6608 - 61.4% (1st rd)
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs Chad Pennington 11,446 - 63.6% (1st Rd)
Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4% vs Mike Glennon 7411 - 60.4%
Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1% vs Kirk Cousins 9131 - 64.1%
Brandon Weeden 9260 - 69.5% vs Brock Osweiler 5082 - 60.6%
David Fales 8382 - 68% vs Tom Savage 5690 - 56.8%
Accuracy or completion percentage in college doesn't always translate as a sure fire indicator of whom will become the more successful NFL quarterback.
but look at these comparisons in relation to your previous ones, these are much closer than what you had previously posted. shows that the passing game is getting much better in term of accuracy from the QB position. as far as college to the pros, I dont think there is any sort of barometer as to who will succeed and who wont, except that they get into a situation that fits the QB and allows them to grow without to much pressure and that they have a good/great supporting cast of coaches and players around them.
|
